-
The American Journal of Chinese Medicine 2020The aim of this research is to evaluate the clinical evidence of an herbal medicine (HM) treatment on influenza and describe the potential benefits and adverse events by... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
The aim of this research is to evaluate the clinical evidence of an herbal medicine (HM) treatment on influenza and describe the potential benefits and adverse events by reviewing all relevant randomized controlled trials. All papers published from 2010 to 2019 in all languages in six databases were searched, including all randomized controlled trials on adults and children, testing herbal medicine for treatment of influenza, alone or in combination with conventional antiviral therapy. The main outcome parameters of interest were total effective rate, time to resolution of fever, adverse events, complications, and duration of viral shedding. 25 trials of 3044 patients were included. Herbal medicine compared to placebo significantly reduced time to fever resolution by 4.96[Formula: see text]h (mean difference, [Formula: see text]4.96; 95% CI, [Formula: see text]7.11 to [Formula: see text]2.80; [Formula: see text]), herbal medicine compared to oseltamivir showed no significant difference (mean difference, [Formula: see text]1.82; 95% CI, [Formula: see text]6.08 to 2.44; [Formula: see text]), and herbal medicine plus oseltamivir combined treatment significantly reduced duration of fever by 7.84[Formula: see text]h compared to a single treatment with oseltamivir (mean difference, [Formula: see text]7.84; 95% CI, [Formula: see text]12.51 to [Formula: see text]3.17; [Formula: see text]). Herbal medicine compared to placebo showed a significantly better total effective rate (risk ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.18 to 3.07; [Formula: see text]), herbal medicine compared to oseltamivir indicated significantly better effective rate (risk ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.29; [Formula: see text]), and combined treatment showed a significantly better total effective rate compared to a single treatment with oseltamivir (risk ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.36; [Formula: see text]). Regarding safety, no serious adverse events were reported in HM treatment. HM presented fewer adverse events compared to oseltamivir, but the difference was not significant (risk difference, [Formula: see text]0.04; 95% CI, [Formula: see text]0.09 to 0.00; [Formula: see text]), and the combined treatment did not increase adverse events compared to oseltamivir (risk difference, [Formula: see text]0.02; 95% CI, [Formula: see text]0.06 to 0.02; [Formula: see text]). Research findings show that herbal medicine treatments have beneficial therapeutic effects on influenza and could decrease duration of fever and improve total effective rate. In addition, herbal medicine plus oseltamivir combined therapy could increase the therapeutic effect compared to a single treatment with oseltamivir.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Female; Humans; Influenza, Human; Male; Oseltamivir; Phytotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33167671
DOI: 10.1142/S0192415X20500779 -
Journal of Chemotherapy (Florence,... Jul 2024Through a Rapid Health Technology Assessment (RHTA), we evaluated the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of baloxavir in the treatment of influenza, providing the... (Review)
Review
Through a Rapid Health Technology Assessment (RHTA), we evaluated the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of baloxavir in the treatment of influenza, providing the necessary scientific information and evidence-based basis for healthcare professionals and health insurance decision-makers in making rational selections. Through systematic searches of , , , database and the official website of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, we collected systematic reviews (SR)/Meta-analysis, cost-effectiveness evaluations and HTA reports of baloxavir for influenza, with a search time frame of date of database establishment to July 31, 2022. We then performed data extraction, literature screening and quality evaluation on the literature that met our selection criteria, after which the results of the studies were pooled and qualitatively described for analysis. 10 studies were included, including 6 SR/Meta-analysis, three economics studies, and 1 HTA report. In terms of efficacy, baloxavir had an advantage over oseltamivir for all three types of influenza patients (otherwise healthy patients, high-risk patients, and patients are not separated into groups with and without underlying health conditions) concerning change in virus titer from baseline at 24 and 48 h; about otherwise healthy patients and high-risk patients, baloxavir had an advantage over peramivir; pertaining to high-risk patients, baloxavir had an advantage over laninamivir; the above differences between groups were all statistically significant. In terms of safety, in otherwise healthy patients and patients are not separated into groups with and without underlying health conditions, baloxavir significantly reduced the incidence of DRAEs and nausea compared with oseltamivir, as well as significantly reduced the incidence of DRAEs compared with laninamivir; in patients are not separated into groups with and without underlying health conditions, baloxavir significantly reduced the incidence of AEs and diarrhoea compared with oseltamivir; the differences between the above groups were all statistically significant. Economically, in Japanese adult influenza patients and high-risk populations, the Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) of baloxavir slightly triumphed over that of laninamivir (Δ = 0.000112 and 0.00209 QALY per 1 patient, respectively); moreover, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER: 2,231,260 and 68,855 yen/QALY, respectively) was below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (5,000,000 yen/QALY); in Chinese adult influenza patients without underlying diseases and adult high-risk influenza patients, baloxavir had a higher QALY compared with oseltamivir (Δ = 0.000246 and 0.000186 respectively), however, their ICER (12,230 and 64,956 RMB/QALY) was above the local WTP threshold (10,000 RMB/QALY) and thus did not provide a cost-effectiveness advantage. Baloxavir had a favorable efficacy and safety profile compared to neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs), and the currently available evidence suggested that it had an economic advantage only in Japan.
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dibenzothiepins; Endonucleases; Enzyme Inhibitors; Influenza, Human; Morpholines; Pyridones; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Triazines
PubMed: 37767970
DOI: 10.1080/1120009X.2023.2263270 -
The Journal of Antimicrobial... Jun 2017To review systematically the published literature evaluating neuraminidase inhibitor (NI) safety and effectiveness in situations of pandemic and novel/variant influenza. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To review systematically the published literature evaluating neuraminidase inhibitor (NI) safety and effectiveness in situations of pandemic and novel/variant influenza.
METHODS
We searched six online databases using comprehensive search criteria for observational studies and randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of NI treatment, prophylaxis or outbreak control in patients of all ages.
RESULTS
Overall, 165 studies were included (95% observational), which were generally of low methodological quality due to lack of adjustment for confounding variables. In studies reporting adjusted estimates in general populations, NI treatment appeared likely to be effective against mortality (primarily if administered within 48 h of symptom onset) and potentially effective in reducing pneumonia. NIs appeared effective in reducing secondary transmission when indicated for prophylaxis. Limited, low-quality data suggest NIs are likely safe in general populations and may be safe in pregnant women and children. Data are scarce regarding safety of NIs in adults and high-risk individuals.
CONCLUSIONS
Most included studies were observational, statistically underpowered and at high risk of reporting biased and/or confounded effect estimates. NI treatment appeared likely effective in reducing mortality (cause unspecified) and pneumonia in general populations, with increasing benefit when administered with 48 h of symptom onset. NI pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis is likely effective in reducing secondary transmission of influenza in a general population. Our evidence suggests NIs are likely safe to use in the general population; however, data for children and pregnant women are limited. Knowledge gaps persist in specific populations such as Aboriginals, high-risk individuals and the elderly.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antiviral Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Clinical Trials as Topic; Disease Outbreaks; Enzyme Inhibitors; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Influenza, Human; Male; Middle Aged; Neuraminidase; Observational Studies as Topic; Oseltamivir; Pandemics; Pneumonia; Young Adult; Zanamivir
PubMed: 28204554
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkx013 -
Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi = Zhongguo... Apr 2017To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Lianhua Qingwen capsule for influenza. All reports of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on Lianhua Qingwen capsule treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Lianhua Qingwen capsule for influenza. All reports of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on Lianhua Qingwen capsule treating influenza were retrieved from database of CNKI, WANFANG DATA, VIP, PubMed, the Cochrane Library by February 2017. The studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the data were extracted by 2 authors, the quality of the included RCTs was assessed, and meta-analysis was performed using Revman5.3 software. A total of 1 525 patients and 10 studies were included. The results of meta analysis showed that compared with oseltamivir, Lianhua Qingwen capsule was more effective in alleviating flu symptoms, including the time of headaches disappeared [SMD=-0.25,95% CI(-0.48, -0.01)], the time of sore throat disappeared [SMD=-0.53,95% CI(-0.72, -0.34)], the time of cough disappeared [SMD=-0.39,95%CI(-0.57, -0.21)], whole body aches disappeared [ SMD=-0.49, 95% CI (-0.78, -0.21)], the time of weak disappeared [SMD=-0.56,95%CI (-0.82, -0.29)], and the time of abatement of fever [SMD=-3.47,95%CI(-6.27, -0.67)]. Also, there were some statistical significant differences between the two groups except nasal congestion and the time of virus turning negative. Compared with Ribavirin, Lianhua Qingwen capsule was more effective in terms of the rate of temperature effect, [RR=1.53, 95% CI (1.24, 1.90)], the difference between the two groups was statistically significant. Compared with Ankahuangmin capsules, significant differences were found in terms of the he rate temperature effect [RR=1.37, 95%CI (1.19,1.57)]. Current evidence shows that Lianhua Qingwen capsule is more effective and safer than Oseltamivir, Ribavirin and Ankahuangmin capsules. Due to the low quality of the clinical research, the accuracy of this conclusion needs to be conducted to verify.
Topics: Capsules; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Influenza, Human; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29071849
DOI: 10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.2017.0044 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... May 2018Oseltamivir has been used to treat children with influenza for nearly 2 decades, with treatment currently approved for infants aged ≥2 weeks. However, efficacy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oseltamivir has been used to treat children with influenza for nearly 2 decades, with treatment currently approved for infants aged ≥2 weeks. However, efficacy and safety remain controversial. Newer randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs), not included in previous meta-analyses, can add to the evidence base.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs of oseltamivir therapy in children. We obtained individual patient data and examined protocol-defined outcomes. We then conducted a 2-stage, random-effects meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of treatment in reducing the duration of illness, estimated using differences in restricted mean survival time (RMST) by treatment group. We also examined complications and safety.
RESULTS
We identified 5 trials that included 2561 patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and 1598 in the intention-to-treat infected (ITTI) populations. Overall, oseltamivir treatment significantly reduced the duration of illness in the ITTI population (RMST difference, -17.6 hours; 95% confidence interval [CI], -34.7 to -0.62 hours). In trials that enrolled patients without asthma, the difference was larger (-29.9 hours; 95% CI, -53.9 to -5.8 hours). Risk of otitis media was 34% lower in the ITTI population. Vomiting was the only adverse event with a significantly higher risk in the treatment group.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite substantial heterogeneity in pediatric trials, we found that treatment with oseltamivir significantly reduced the duration of illness in those with influenza and lowered the risk of developing otitis media. Alternative endpoints may be required to evaluate the efficacy of oseltamivir in pediatric patients with asthma.
Topics: Adolescent; Antiviral Agents; Child; Humans; Influenza, Human; Oseltamivir; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29186364
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cix1040 -
Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy Aug 2021The study was to compare the efficacy between IV peramivir and oral oseltamivir treatments in patients with influenza. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The study was to compare the efficacy between IV peramivir and oral oseltamivir treatments in patients with influenza.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published before January 2020.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the pooled effect size by using a random-effects model. Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 1,138 patients were reviewed. The incidence of total complications revealed no significant difference between 600 mg IV peramivir (P600) and 75 mg oral oseltamivir (O75) treatments (2.8% vs. 4.1%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-1.38). The incidence of pneumonia was not significantly different between the P600 and O75 treatment groups (2.2% vs. 2.7%; RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.37-1.51). Regarding the time to the alleviation of symptoms, no difference was found in P600 and O75 treatment (MD = -3.00; 95% CI: -11.07 to 5.06). The rate of fever clearance in 24 h and the time to fever resolution were not statistically different between the IV peramivir and oral oseltamivir treatments (at different dosages) groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The treatment of influenza with IV peramivir or oral oseltamivir had similar clinical efficacy.
Topics: Acids, Carbocyclic; Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Antiviral Agents; Guanidines; Humans; Influenza, Human; Oseltamivir; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33641583
DOI: 10.1080/14787210.2021.1878025 -
Systematic Reviews Feb 2020To assess the benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines.
DATA SOURCES
Clinical study reports obtained from the European Medicines Agency and GlaxoSmithKline from 2014 to 2017.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised trials that compared an HPV vaccine with a placebo or active comparator in healthy participants of all ages.
APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS
Two researchers extracted data and judged risk of bias with the Cochrane tool (version 2011). Risk ratio (RR) estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.
OUTCOMES
Clinically relevant outcomes in intention to treat populations-including HPV-related cancer precursors irrespective of involved HPV types, treatment procedures and serious and general harms.
RESULTS
Twenty-four of 50 eligible clinical study reports were obtained with 58,412 pages of 22 trials and 2 follow-up studies including 95,670 participants: 79,102 females and 16,568 males age 8-72; 393,194 person-years; and 49 months mean weighted follow-up. We judged all 24 studies to be at high risk of bias. Serious harms were incompletely reported for 72% of participants (68,610/95,670). Nearly all control participants received active comparators (48,289/48,595, 99%). No clinical study report included complete case report forms. At 4 years follow-up, the HPV vaccines reduced HPV-related carcinoma in situ (367 in the HPV vaccine group vs. 490 in the comparator group, RR 0.73 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.53 to 1.00], number needed to vaccinate [NNV] 387, P = 0.05, I = 67%) and HPV-related treatment procedures (1018 vs. 1416, RR 0.71 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.80], NNV 75, P < 0.00001, I = 45%). The HPV vaccines increased serious nervous system disorders (exploratory analysis: 72 vs. 46, RR 1.49 [1.02 to 2.16], number needed to harm [NNH] 1325, P = 0.040, I = 0%) and general harms (13,248 vs. 12,394, RR 1.07 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.11], NNH 51, P = 0.0002, I = 77%) but did not significantly increase fatal harms (45 vs. 38, RR 1.19 [95% CI 0.65 to 2.19], P = 0.58, I = 30%) or serious harms (1404 vs. 1357, RR 1.01 [95% CI 0.94 to 1.08], P = 0.79, I = 0%).
CONCLUSION
At 4 years follow-up, the HPV vaccines decreased HPV-related cancer precursors and treatment procedures but increased serious nervous system disorders (exploratory analysis) and general harms. As the included trials were primarily designed to assess benefits and were not adequately designed to assess harms, the extent to which the HPV vaccines' benefits outweigh their harms is unclear. Limited access to clinical study reports and trial data with case report forms prevented a thorough assessment.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
CRD42017056093. Our systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO in January 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20170030.pdf. Two protocol amendments were registered on PROSPERO on November 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20171116.pdf. Our index of the HPV vaccine studies was published in Systematic Reviews in January 2018: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0675-z. A description of the challenges obtaining the data was published in September 2018: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3694.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Alphapapillomavirus; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Papillomavirus Vaccines; Young Adult
PubMed: 32106879
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-0983-y -
Frontiers in Medicine 2020The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been declared a public health emergency worldwide. The objective of this systematic review was to characterize the clinical,...
The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been declared a public health emergency worldwide. The objective of this systematic review was to characterize the clinical, diagnostic, and treatment characteristics of hospitalized patients presenting with COVID-19. We conducted a structured search using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science to collect both case reports and case series on COVID-19 published up to April 24, 2020. There were no restrictions regarding publication language. Eighty articles were included analyzing a total of 417 patients with a mean age of 48 years. The most common presenting symptom in patients who tested positive for COVID-19 was fever, reported in up to 62% of patients from 82% of the analyzed studies. Other symptoms including rhinorrhea, dizziness, and chills were less frequently reported. Additionally, in studies that reported C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements, a large majority of patients displayed an elevated CRP (60%). Progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was the most common complication of patients testing positive for COVID-19 (21%). CT images displayed ground-glass opacification (GGO) patterns (80%) as well as bilateral lung involvement (69%). The most commonly used antiviral treatment modalities included, lopinavir (HIV protease inhibitor), arbidiol hydrochloride (influenza fusion inhibitor), and oseltamivir (neuraminidase inhibitor). Development of ARDS may play a role in estimating disease progression and mortality risk. Early detection of elevations in serum CRP, combined with a clinical COVID-19 symptom presentation may be used as a surrogate marker for the presence and severity of the disease. There is a paucity of data surrounding the efficacy of treatments. There is currently not a well-established gold standard therapy for the treatment of diagnosed COVID-19. Further prospective investigations are necessary.
PubMed: 32574328
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00231 -
Current Medical Research and Opinion Aug 2019Baloxavir marboxil (baloxavir) is the first cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor being studied for the treatment of influenza in single oral dosing regimen. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Baloxavir marboxil (baloxavir) is the first cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor being studied for the treatment of influenza in single oral dosing regimen. This network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the efficacy and safety of baloxavir compared to other antivirals for influenza in otherwise healthy patients. A systematic literature review was performed on 14 November 2016 in Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and ICHUSHI to identify randomized controlled trials assessing antivirals for influenza. A NMA including 22 trials was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of baloxavir with other antivirals. The time to alleviation of all symptoms was significantly shorter for baloxavir compared to zanamivir (difference in median time 19.96 h; 95% CrI [3.23, 39.07]). The time to cessation of viral shedding was significantly shorter for baloxavir than zanamivir and oseltamivir (47.00 h; 95% CrI [28.18, 73.86] and 56.03 h [33.74, 87.86], respectively). The mean decline in virus titer from baseline to 24 h was significantly greater for baloxavir than for the other drugs. Other differences in efficacy outcomes were not significant. No significant differences were found between baloxavir and the other antivirals for safety, except total drug-related adverse events where baloxavir demonstrated a decrease compared to oseltamivir and laninamivir. The NMA suggests that baloxavir demonstrated better or similar efficacy results compared to other antivirals with a comparable safety profile. Baloxavir led to a significant decrease in viral titer versus zanamivir, oseltamivir and peramivir and decreased viral shedding versus zanamivir and oseltamivir.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Dibenzothiepins; Enzyme Inhibitors; Humans; Influenza, Human; Morpholines; Network Meta-Analysis; Neuraminidase; Oxazines; Pyridines; Pyridones; Thiepins; Triazines
PubMed: 30810054
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2019.1584505 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2016A systematic review found that 3% of working adults who had received influenza vaccine and 5% of those who were unvaccinated had laboratory-proven influenza per season;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A systematic review found that 3% of working adults who had received influenza vaccine and 5% of those who were unvaccinated had laboratory-proven influenza per season; in healthcare workers (HCWs) these percentages were 5% and 8% respectively. Healthcare workers may transmit influenza to patients.
OBJECTIVES
To identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs assessing the effects of vaccinating healthcare workers on the incidence of laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia, death from pneumonia and admission to hospital for respiratory illness in those aged 60 years or older resident in long-term care institutions (LTCIs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to October week 3, 2015), EMBASE (1974 to October 2015) and Web of Science (2006 to October 2015), but Biological Abstracts only from 1969 to March 2013 and Science Citation Index-Expanded from 1974 to March 2013 due to lack of institutional access in 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of influenza vaccination of healthcare workers caring for individuals aged 60 years or older in LTCIs and the incidence of laboratory-proven influenza and its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, or hospitalisation or death due to lower respiratory tract infection) in individuals aged 60 years or older in LTCIs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Effects on dichotomous outcomes were measured as risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four cluster-RCTs and one cohort study (n = 12,742) of influenza vaccination for HCWs caring for individuals ≥ 60 years in LTCIs. Four cluster RCTs (5896 residents) provided outcome data that addressed the objectives of our review. The studies were comparable in their study populations, intervention and outcome measures. The studies did not report adverse events. The principal sources of bias in the studies related to attrition, lack of blinding, contamination in the control groups and low rates of vaccination coverage in the intervention arms, leading us to downgrade the quality of evidence for all outcomes due to serious risk of bias.Offering influenza vaccination to HCWs based in long term care homes may have little or no effect on the number of residents who develop laboratory-proven influenza compared with those living in care homes where no vaccination is offered (RD 0 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), two studies with samples taken from 752 participants; low quality evidence). HCW vaccination probably leads to a reduction in lower respiratory tract infection in residents from 6% to 4% (RD -0.02 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.01), one study of 3400 people; moderate quality evidence). HCW vaccination programmes may have little or no effect on the number of residents admitted to hospital for respiratory illness (RD 0 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, one study of 1059 people; low quality evidence). We decided not to combine data on deaths from lower respiratory tract infection (two studies of 4459 people) or all cause deaths (four studies of 8468 people). The direction and size of difference in risk varied between the studies. We are uncertain as to the effect of vaccination on these outcomes due to the very low quality of evidence. Adjusted analyses, which took into account the cluster design, did not differ substantively from the pooled analysis with unadjusted data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review findings have not identified conclusive evidence of benefit of HCW vaccination programmes on specific outcomes of laboratory-proven influenza, its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, hospitalisation or death due to lower respiratory tract illness), or all cause mortality in people over the age of 60 who live in care institutions. This review did not find information on co-interventions with healthcare worker vaccination: hand-washing, face masks, early detection of laboratory-proven influenza, quarantine, avoiding admissions, antivirals and asking healthcare workers with influenza or influenza-like illness (ILI) not to work. This review does not provide reasonable evidence to support the vaccination of healthcare workers to prevent influenza in those aged 60 years or older resident in LTCIs. High quality RCTs are required to avoid the risks of bias in methodology and conduct identified by this review and to test further these interventions in combination.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Health Personnel; Homes for the Aged; Humans; Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vaccines, Inactivated
PubMed: 27251461
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005187.pub5